Jacob Jansen - Wrong parents?

It is to be noted that these two pieces of research disagree altogether on the parentage of Jacob Jansz

* http://www.stamouers.com/index.php/stamouers/surnames-h-to-j/231-jo
* http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/g14/p14974.htm

We look forward to further research of the excellent quality that is happening in this area, to follow this through.

Hi Sharon the will of Jonker van Makassar makes it clear that Jacob Jansz was Rosetta's child, clearly a 'voorkind' that she had before they had 3 children together. He calls hin "haar kind" in the will but treats him as his other children in terms of inheritance. [Will 1727: CJ 2604:05 for Jonker, van Maccassar]

In the opgaafrolle the Jonker family show up with 2 sons in 1719 (i.e. Jacob Jansz and Abdullah - later to be baptised as Adolph Jonker) followed by 2 daughters between 1722 - 1724.(jamela and Raja, later to be baptised Johanna and Catharina) [HEESE H. (1979), Opgaafrolle vir Drakenstein, Kaapstad en Distrik (1719, 1721, 1724, 1725)]

In die 1735 opgaafrol Adolph and his half-brother Jacob Jansz are recorded as single men living together or right next door to each other.

Brothers Adolph Jonker and Jacob Jansz are also given as beneficiaries in the Will of free black woman Rosetta van Bengale, who owned their mother Rosetta van Java/Boegeis prior to her manumission - ie pre-1719.[Will: Rosetta van Bengale (30 Mei 1739). CJ 2609:6 1739]

Jacob Jansz's marriage entry of 15 Oct 1741 indicates that he is 'van Amsterdam'. There were many Jansz or Jansen VOC personnel who visited the Cape, he was presumably one of their children. It is unclear whether Rosetta actually travelled to Amsterdam and had Jacob Jansz there, or whether he just wanted to emphasize his father's origin as being from Amsterdam, and that he identifeid strongly with his Dutch roots. [Nationaal Archief Nederland: VOC Sea-voyagers. http://vocseavoyagers.nationaalarchief.nl/search.aspx Searchable database]

Jacob Jansz remained part of the closely knit Jonker family, as evidenced by him signing witness to Adolph Jonker's son Pieter baptised in Drakenatein on 28/11/1745.

Jacob Jansz is very clearly a half-European 'voorkind' of Rosetta van Java/Boegies with a Dutch man from Amsterdam, whom was raised by Rosetta and her husband Jonker van Makassar and their 3 children.

Why does the "About myself" section for Jacob JANSZ carry a reference to a FFY e-family profile page that is still wrong and outdated?

Having such a reference to the wrong and outdated information on the FFY site also exposes us to the risk of further proliferating the Soetkoeksindroom surrounding the so-called Prince's of Ternate and his non-relationship with the Jonker family.

See http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/g14/p14974.htm

Jaco Strauss - Delia Robertson's FFYP has not yet had any time to engage with your article's interpretation of the data, and update their page. This is a new and dynamic area of research, and the conversation about the most plausible interpretation of the data has only recently been re-opened. Private User's preparedness to question the Jonker/Pama version is now an important part of the history of research on this issue, and I'm looking forward to seeing further conversations between researchers in this area - especially in the area of the Rosettas.

I have taken great pains to stabilise the tree around the most current interpretation - creating a project; MPing all the profiles; Locking Naming Fields; adding Curator Notes; and including all interested parties in the management of these profiles - in order that there be little chance of a 'wishful thinking' mashup.
But I have also gone out of my way to deliberately leave a research spoor, because I am certain we will be engaging with it in the future. It seems to me to be premature to be shutting down the possibility of further Discussion.

Hi Sharon

My apologies if my request left the wrong impression. My intent had never been to destroy a "research spoor" or remove history, but rather - as part of the cleanup process - to remove references to external pages that are now known to be incorrect. Such links to conflicting profile information leads to confusion and replication of the Soetkoek Sindroom.

However, I also understand that it takes time to double check facts and update pages, so I am happy that we leave the links as they are for a month or what and then reconsider them again.

:-)

.... just quietly observing, until this thought came up ....

It *can* be helpful to have documentation somewhere of oft-cited but now known to be incorrect theories.

One of the best examples I know for that approach is Wikipedia listing for the parentage of Nancy Hanks, wife of American President Lincoln. Her primary page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Lincoln) references (early on!) a separate page which documents previous wide-spread, but erroneous ancestry: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Hanks_Lincoln_heritage).

Now this is an EXCELLENT idea Dan thank you!!! ☺

Proves just how valuable it is for people to collaborate and pool ideas!!!

Sharon if it is possoble to create a ‘history’ tab in the project page, we can add pdf copies off ALL the key historic documents pertaining to this 250 year old ‘puzzle’ there, keeping a perfect and complete history spoor:
• 1772: Naturalist Sparrman indicated Adolph was of mixed race, his mother being non-European
• 1902-1954: Historians Colenbrander, Moritz and Redelinghuys indicated that Adolph was of German descent
• 1958: Genealogist dr. J Hoge1 unleashed much controversy by claiming that Adolph was the son of free slaves Jonker van Makassar and Rosetta van Java. His cited documents indicated that he also believed Jonker van Makassar to have been the same person as banned Prince Catchiri Daijman Mamoedi from Ternate (aka Ketees Malocco). No explanation for this conclusion was given however.
• 1965-6: Dr A.H. Jonker2 and dr. C. Pama supports German descent
• 1966-1986: Malherbe3 (1966) and Heese & Lombard4 (1986) support Jonker van Makassar as Adolph’s father
• 2013: Mansell Upham5 supports dr. Hoge’s 1958 claims.
We can then link to this information on the main page at the bottom of the ‘About’ section, and not only will it be an excellent way to preserve the history as it developed forever, but we can then also safely sever all active links to outdated and potentially misleading historic sources as @Jaco mentioned, without any loss of information or recognition of past documents published by writers and researchers who have contributed to the development of the debate over time.

Sharon if you like the idea and it’s possible to create such a tab, people can get straight onto it and add whichever documents they have copies of, I can assist too when I get home from work tonight with adding whatever has not been added yet.

A superb and very elegant solution for history-heavy 'puzzles' - great thinking Dan!

That's very interesting Dan Cornett. Thanks for posting.

Em Lo - great idea. Go to the Top Right of the project page, and click on Photos and Documents

I found it and have uploaded the first few - rest to follow tomorrow ☺

Re Adolph Jonker's half brother Jacob Jansz: He seems to have 3 strange aka names in his profile: Taliep van de Caep, Talie(p), Talib.
I can not find any reference to him ever have been called by such names. Can these be deleted?

Are they a reference to Tali - & a leftover from being the child of the Prince? What justification is in Mansel's article for this name?

Hi Sharon I had a quick look - and yes they are from Mansell's article. The reference given for them in his article is Helena Liebenberg's publication "Oosterse Bannelinge aan die Kaap" which mentions the prince's request to free his 3 children Amel, Adel and Talie. Since we know now the prince was not Jacob Jansz's father, it will be good to delete these.

Will do that.

Thanks Sharon. I have actioned Dan Cornett's great idea and added 11 historic articles and references in pdf format to "Photos and Documents" on the ‘Adolph Jonker Ancestry Puzzle’ page http://www.geni.com/projects/Adolph-Jonker-Ancestry-Puzzle/26314

I added a note in the 'About' text of the puzzle page, Adolph's profile page and Jonker van Makassar's profile page, about these documents having been uploaded. You are welcome to place more/other links to it.

Collectively they form the 'research spoor', spanning 241 years from 1772 (Sparrman's account of meeting Adolph) to 2013 (Upham's FFY article).

Now that the latter has been appended safely in pdf format as a historic Jonker publication, are you happy to remove the active links to it's FFY location at the bottom of each of the above-mentioned pages, and any others it may have been added to, as discussed above to prevent confusion and/or errors made by people linking to it, believing it contains correct/current information?

I have removed The Upham article at Delia's request since I do not have distribution rights to it - an oversight on my part amidst the enthusiasm of creating this area in which to collect reference material.
I have asked Delia if she would please add a copy there herself.

Hi Em. Good work.
Please don't remove the FFYP links off any profiles. Those are links to dynamic pages which will be updated in due course. The FFYP is an important resource for the whole SA tree, and is usually the most source based version of any available.
The Abouts on profiles have 'revert' options to prevent vandalism, but you risk your own work being 'reverted' if the FFYP link is deleted and needs to be restored.

No problem Sharon, I had no plans to remove them myself. They are still there at the bottom of each page - hence the question above.

I understand that you have both put a fantastic amount of excellent research work into this issue - & you are keen to have it recognized. Using your article, and quoting your insights on Discussions & Profiles was my way of doing that for you. It took me a week to rework the tree, and ‘lock in’ your version, citing your research - while still keeping resources to past research on all the profiles.

So I’m not enjoying the fact that I’m feeling that I need to keep defending against the deletion of the links to other researcher’s versions of the story.

While your separation of Jonker and the Prince certainly makes the most sense to me – you still need it endorsed by peer review. This is the process of all good historical research. In this area, that means that Mansell & Delia need to engage with your research.
The source facts are certainly open to more than one interpretation; & many of your assumptions are very definitely open to challenge – if only because the available facts are so sparse. Removing all trace of their version makes it look as though you are trying to close down any option that your version might be questioned. That isn’t the way to produce the best history.

Hi Sharon,

Golly no there is no wish or intention to remove all trace of previous research, I am very aware of the value of investigative history and was even super keen for it to be added to the documents section!

I felt concerned though that incorrect links remaining available online as fact could cause errors to continue to be made, but happy to trust your judgement that this is part of the process to be followed. ☺

The definition of "Incorrect' is part of the problem here.
There is little question, with the Indonesian Y-DNA, that the Dr Jonker/Pama white stamvader link was Incorrect - so no question that needed to be removed from profiles.

But the two currently proposed theories both remain viable options with the possibility of tweaks. It is very likely that neither of you has it perfectly correct yet.
Yours was the first published engagement with Mansell's interpretation of the data; and the academic expectation is that Mansell & Delia will now publish a response that engages with your interpretation.

This is not a criticism of your article – (I have locked the tree down to reflect your version & it is not presently possible for a non-Curator to change that - no matter what links they follow)
- it is pointing out that your article still needs to be tested to strengthen its face validity. You want Mansell & Delia to engage with it as much as I do – because until they (or other historians) do; your research is in the nebulous area of an essay of your opinion on the subject.

This area of research, and the area of slave histories in SA that it implicates – is ripe for academic analysis in the post-apartheid era. I certainly hope to be able to reflect more of your research work on this on Geni. (And Em’s line on Geni would be helpful in enabling us to identify more Jonker genetic descendants who are Geni users as interested parties.)
But, I think too, that these exchanges between us might reflect a significant difference in emphasis between those of genealogical societies and those in the field of academic history. What I like about Geni is that it straddles both areas.

Deleting the FFYP’s links & the links to Mansell’s article is unacademic at this stage. It is decades premature to reify any version as the final word that necessitates us deleting all others as simply past confusion. This is an open case, and the corpse is still being dissected 

Dear Sharon,

We thank you sincerely for the effort you have put into correcting the many JONKER links on Geni recently.

Refining family trees sure is a continuous process and small details such as whether the Prince of Ternate had one or two slaves concurrently named Rosette/a (van Ceijlon and van Batavia) could very well be clarified in future as new evidence comes to light. Such potential changes, however, does not impact on the big picture under discussion here.

The central issue under dispute is whether or not Jonker van Makassar and the exiled Prince van Ternate was indeed the same person or two separate individuals. Both theories can not simultaneously be correct and in the interest of good genealogy this issue can and should be settled right now. There is no need to drag this debate out any longer as a sufficiently large body of evidence exists to support the fact that they were NOT one and the same person. If Mansell disagrees with that body of evidence, now is the time to publish his specific evidence to the contrary for all to peruse.

So let’s get the dissection over and the coroner’s report printed. We are happy for our analysis to be tested for validity by experts. This matter could be resolved quite swiftly by putting both articles - as well as any additional relevant evidence Mansell might want to bring to the table - up for active peer review by all SA historians and genealogists with an interest in and knowledge of the subject.

Whichever theory is found to be incorrect by a consensus of our peers would of course remain part of the ‘history spoor’ but must then be retracted from active distribution as 'fact'. This would prevent further confusion and incorrect linking to be perpetuated.

Martina Louw & Jaco Strauss

On the matter of refining the details as minor: The small details are potentially the big details - & the example you cite of connection between the Rosettas & their akas - and whether they are a link between the two households, is just one of the many grey areas created by the sparsity of our knowledge.

Em and Jaco, I'm not going to continue this back and forth carping about whose work must be deleted. This is not a pissing competition, but the scientific method by which we forward the process of documenting history: publication & counter publication that engages with the data.

I am not a fan of the politics that goes on behind the scenes in genealogical societies; as I believe it does not further the agenda of objective history - of which the whitewashed apartheid genealogies we are now deconstructing are cases in point.
So, however rude you feel Mansell & Delia have been to you (& I have no doubt that they have) we will still confer upon them the academic courtesy of time to publish a response to your findings.

@Sharon nobody is asking for a "p1ssing contest". All we suggest is for independent expert perusal right now to establish the more plausible reality. Getting such a consensus is far more preferable than to wait "decades" in order to "reify any version" as you put it.

Hi Sharon, believe me we are entirely aligned with you in that we too are totally disinterested in politics. We only have ONE objective, correcting the misconception and incorrect links associated with the key issue of whether Jonker van Makassar and the Prince of Ternate was the same person, or not.

We are extremely grateful to you for having embraced this correction.
We have absolutely no issue with allowing Mansell and Delia to respond, or with rigorous peer review of our data to establish validity, or the fact that future refining of many details associated with the key truth regarding Adolph’s identity will take place over time.

The only point we made (which I feel caused some misunderstanding), is that the key issue whether Jonker van Makassar and the Prince of Ternate was the same person, can and should be clarified in the near future, not decades hence, to stop continued incorrect links being made and provide future research into the finer details a solid foundation.

We are happy to sit back and allow the academic process to take place. Be assured of our utmost regard and appreciation for your efforts.